Digests
Latest Posts
Plaintiff M7/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 14 (15 April 2021) Intro:- The plaintiff seeks constitutional writs, a writ of certiorari and other relief in respect of a decision made by a delegate of the defendant, the Minister for Home Affairs ("the delegate"), on 12 June 2020 to refuse to grant the plaintiff a protection visa ("the impugned decision"). The plaintiff claimed protection on the basis that he feared persecution in Pakistan on account of his homosexuality. The delegate made a finding, among others, that the evidence, including "open source social media", did not support the view that the plaintiff was a known homosexual in Pakistan. The plaintiff's principal complain
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v EFX17 [2021] HCA 9 (10 March 2021) Intro:- This appeal concerns the meaning and operation of s 501CA(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which requires the Minister to give a person whose visa has been cancelled particular information and an invitation to make representations within the period and in the manner ascertained in accordance with the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The Minister appeals from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which held by majority that (i) the sub-section required that the recipient be capable of understanding the information and invitation and (ii) the information and invitation be g
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 [2021] HCA 6 (4 March 2021) Intro:- This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal Court whereby her Honour considered that the failure by the primary judge to have his oral reasons for judgment translated for the benefit of the first respondent constituted a denial of procedural fairness, and that undoing this denial required the setting aside of the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court.   Facts:- The first respondent is a citizen of Pakistan who, in 2014, applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa after his application for a Student (subclass TU-572) visa was refused. His protection visa applica
DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10 (7 April 2021) Intro:- Section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) relevantly provides two criteria for the grant of a protection visa: that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia "in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee" under s 36(2)(a); and, if the applicant does not satisfy that criterion, that the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa), which gives effect to some of Australia's non-refoulement obligations under international instruments. The differences in the text, context and purpose of s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) and, thus,
DVO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; BNB17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 12 (14 April 2021) Intro:- These appeals from judgments of the Federal Court of Australia concern the effect on a review by the Immigration Assessment Authority under Pt 7AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of errors in the translation of questions asked and answers given at an interview between a referred applicant and a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection conducted after the applicant applied for a protection visa and before the delegate decided to refuse the applicant a protection visa. Facts:- BNB17 - The appellant is a Hindu Tamil from Sri L
TENANT FILES FOR INJUNCTION TO PREVENT LANDLORD FROM ENTERING PREMISES, LANDLORD SEEKS TO HAVE THE INJUNCTION DISSOLVED CONTENDING THAT THE TENANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE RENT RELIEF AGREEMENT
Zeini v Inner Metropolis Holdings Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2021] VCAT 243 (19 March 2021) This case involves the determination of whether the landlord is entitled to re-enter the demised premises after a request for rent relief was made. The landlord contends that the terms of a rent relief agreement have not been complied with. Facts: The Applicants (‘the Tenants’) are the tenants of premises located at 273 Elizabeth Street and 354 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne (‘the Premises’), which are owned by the Respondent (‘the Landlord’). By notice dated 4 February 2021, the Landlord required the Tenants to pay the amount of $260,606 plus costs within 14 days, failing which the Landlord intende
LANDLORD REFUSES TO GRANT RENT RELIEF ALLEGING THAT THE TENANT’S FURTHER REQUEST FOR RENT RELIEF SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED REGULATIONS
R & D Health Clubs Pty Ltd v Lin Wang Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2021] VCAT 349 (19 April 2021) This case involves a determination on whether a complaint request for rent relief made under reg 10(2) of the Regulations as they existed prior to 29 September 2020 entitles the tenant to claim rent relief after 29 September 2020. Facts: The Applicant (‘the Tenant’) is the tenant of retail premises located in Burwood, which operate as a 24-hour gymnasium known as  Snap Fitness Burwood  (‘the Premises’). The Respondent (‘the Landlord’) is the registered owner and landlord of the Premises. The Tenant was forced to close the Premises to the public because of restrictions imposed by the Stat
STATE TRUSTEES QUESTION TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO SON ALLEGING THAT IT WAS VITIATED BY UNDUE INFLUENCE
McFarlane v McFarlane [2021] VSC 197 (23 April 2021) This case involves a property transferred by the mother to his son which is allegedly due to “natural love and affection”. The State Trustees Limited in this case questions the transfer saying that such transfer was vitiated by undue influence. Facts: Judith McFarlane signed a transfer of land, gifting her home at 139 Warby Range Road, Glenrowan (the  Glenrowan property) to her son, Mark McFarlane. The consideration for the transfer was recorded as ‘natural love and affection’.  At the time of the transfer, Mr McFarlane was living with his mother at the Glenrowan property. He became the registered proprietor of the property on 4 January 20
PLAINTIFF REPEATEDLY FILES INCOMPREHENSIBLE PLEADINGS
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2021] NSWSC 422 (26 April 2021) This is an application to proceed where the plaintiff submits incomprehensible pleadings and already filed for relief in various courts. The plaintiff, in this case, is considered  a vexatious litigant. Facts: In Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan v Wan, McCallum J made orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, staying proceedings Mr Wang had brought against Mr Vaughan, his former solicitor and prohibiting him from instituting proceedings naming identified people as parties. In Wang v Botany View Hotel, Adamson J made further orders under the Act, varying the orders McCallum J had made, to prohibit Mr Wang from instituting pro
COURT DETERMINES DANIEL SHARPE’S SENTENCE FOR STABBING ANDREW DRAKE AFTER AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN ANDREW AND HIS FATHER OCCURED
R v Sharpe (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 379 (23 April 2021) This is a sentencing proceeding involving the crime of Manslaughter, on the basis of excessive self-defense (after the offender intervened in an altercation between his father and the deceased), where the offender repeatedly stabbed the deceased after the latter seriously injured Daniel’s father. Facts: Daniel James Sharpe (the offender) pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging that on or about 13 April 2019, at Surfside in the State of New South Wales, he murdered Andrew Peter Drake.  On 23 February 2021, the jury found the offender not guilty of Mr Drake’s murder, but guilty of his manslaughter. The maximum penalty for the offense of m
FILIPINA DOCTOR LIVING IN THE US SEEKS INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN DEFENDANTS FROM UPLOADING DEFAMATORY VIDEOS INVOLVING HER
Agustin-Bunch v Smith [2021] VSC 158 (12 April 2021) Plaintiff files for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing or causing to be published in any form, or maintaining online for download, or uploading so as to make available for publication online videos made by the defendants mentioning the plaintiffs which are said to be defamatory and misleading. Facts: The first plaintiff  (‘Dr Farrah’) lives in Texas. She qualified as a doctor of medicine in the Philippines. The second defendant (‘Doc Adam’) is a company whose sole director is Dr Smith’s partner. That company derives substantially all of its revenue from payments made to it by Facebook and YouTube for adv
PLAINTIFF SUES HIS FORMER LAWYERS FOR NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN LOSS
Falcon v Makin & Kinsey Solicitors Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] VSC  171  (9 April 2021) This is a case filed by the plaintiff against his former lawyers for ceasing to act for him resulting in a loss. Facts: Mr Falcon retained a firm of solicitors, Makin & Kinsey, to represent him in a dispute (Batsakis proceeding) with an architect he had engaged for property development in Frankston.  He now sues that firm and its principal, Mr Makin for negligence. Central to his complaint against the solicitors is the fact that after the mediation they filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act and did not notify him that they were doing so until after he had left Australia.  As a result of him having left A
SSL Certificates